
Any suggestions????
Thanks for your patience
Code: Select all
cat /proc/asound/card?/stream0 | grep Momentary
Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.Rocky Bennett wrote:Have you tried a different media player besides Clemente? There are some really excellent ones to choose from that should provide MUCH better sound than Clemente. I use Audacious because it gives me the sound quality that I need for my uber hi fi.
Hoser Rob wrote:Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.Rocky Bennett wrote:Have you tried a different media player besides Clemente? There are some really excellent ones to choose from that should provide MUCH better sound than Clemente. I use Audacious because it gives me the sound quality that I need for my uber hi fi.
Hoser Rob wrote:Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.Rocky Bennett wrote:Have you tried a different media player besides Clemente? There are some really excellent ones to choose from that should provide MUCH better sound than Clemente. I use Audacious because it gives me the sound quality that I need for my uber hi fi.
Thanks. I'll try it later. I found an interesting set in Audacious: direct stream to hardware with non software manipulation. It sounds extremely cleaner and louder than with other option.Rocky Bennett wrote:To the OP, I forgot to mention that since I have been using Linux for a few years I have learned a few things regarding hi fi audio playback that might come in handy to you. Right now I am using Kubuntu (a bit of distro hopping) but you can go into your system monitor ( I forget what it is called in Linux Mint) and elevate the priority level of pulse audio to "high priority. This will allow the audio features of the kernel to have a higher priority and use the resources of your computer to be more focused on the audio stream. Try this out and see if it makes a difference.
I will set up my Linux Mint system again soon and play with the audio settings so that I can remember some of the other tricks that I have learned. I will post back.
Rocky
I'm sorry but I've to admit that the sound quality in audacious is better that the one in foobar2000 (wasapi) and the quality of foobar2000 is better that the one in clementine. May be it's due to your hi fi equipment but on my system I can clearly hear the difference.Rocky Bennett wrote:Hoser Rob wrote:Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.Rocky Bennett wrote:Have you tried a different media player besides Clemente? There are some really excellent ones to choose from that should provide MUCH better sound than Clemente. I use Audacious because it gives me the sound quality that I need for my uber hi fi.
Actually that makes absolutely no difference to reality. In reality these two apps perform their functions completely differently and sound completely different. I also use foobar2000 in Windows with WASAPI enabled and the sound quality is stunning. Unfortunately there is no direct replacement for that in Linux.
greerd wrote:Here's a post from forum member 111MilesToGo titled Steps towards a near-audiophile, bit-perfect Linux audio setup that might shed some more light on your situation. He had problems down converting for his DragonFly RED DAC, which you won't, but good info on setting up Audacious.
They probably do. Pretty much all the qualities and differences that hi-fi aficionados think they can hear disappear with blind or ABX listening - its' really pretty funny. Once you get past bargain-basement quality, speakers & headphones are the the only hardware that actually sound different from each other when the listener doesn't know what he's hearing. A $2 DAC can't be distinguished from a $1000 DAC, sampling rates > 32kHz all sound the same, etc.Hoser Rob wrote:Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.
This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.
In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!
May I disagree? When you compare equipment the common "audiophile" sense let you hear the sound while blind. You have to close your eyes and let the brain uses only ears. Your brain can be deceived from what it sees and tends to let you know where the sound come from. While blind you feel the sound and you hear the differences between a 100 or 1000 DAC. You ear a more depth sound stage or the sound that collapse. You see with ears a more wide image or a very close one. The difference between Clementine and Audacious is: while playing a 92K (Diana Krall???) in Clementine the voice is in front of the speaker and the is at the same level; with audacious the voice is behind the speakers and the piano stands at a lower level. You can see the difference... era in this case.Flemur wrote:They probably do. Pretty much all the qualities and differences that hi-fi aficionados think they can hear disappear with blind or ABX listening - its' really pretty funny. Once you get past bargain-basement quality, speakers & headphones are the the only hardware that actually sound different from each other when the listener doesn't know what he's hearing. A $2 DAC can't be distinguished from a $1000 DAC, sampling rates > 32kHz all sound the same, etc.Hoser Rob wrote:Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.
E.g. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.htmlThis paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.
In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!
Clementine also does this, as does VLC. It's just dumping the bit stream through ALSA, and Linux is so about bit streams. This is such a no brainer I'd never use a program that didn't do it.alfa71omega wrote:... I found an interesting set in Audacious: direct stream to hardware with non software manipulation. It sounds extremely cleaner and louder than with other option.